Submited on: 14 Jun 2013 01:22:44 PM GMT
Published on: 15 Jun 2013 11:12:46 AM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    A clinical case about accidental fixation of nasogastric tube to pylorus was reported by authors. Such case report is important because review of available published literature reveals that such case has not been reported.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No, for qualitative presentation of this article, authors must have first written other kind of NG tube complications thereafter must have written about their case as a novel clinical case report that has not been reported by any. Though the case report is good article but draft presentation is not good and qualitative.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes, review of available literature reveals that author's claim is novel


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No, As this clinical case report is a novel article, Method of fixed tube removal must have been well elaborated


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    1. This article is a clinical case report hence draft of article must have been focussed on case reporting in perview of previously reported NG tube complications.

    2. I would like to say that Review of previously published literature on any topic constitutes a separate article for publication. For qualitative draft of any scientific publication (Clinical case report or research paper) review must be used only for citation in the text under the headings Introcution stating the importance of paper, Methodology, Results and discussion. Paper could have a better and qualitative presentation if under the heading "Discussion) authors first have discussed previously reported complications (as per review) thereafter must have discussed about their case report with worlds "review of available literature revealed that there is no/meager any report about iatrogenic fixation of NG tube in pylorus"

    3. for qualitative presentation, abbrevation "NG" must not be used in "Tile", rather full form must be written in title.

    more appealing title could have been "Iatrogenic Fixation of Naso-Gastric/Jejunal Tube in Pylorus and It's Surgical Removal" or "Surgical Management for Iatrogenically Fixed Naso-Gastric/Jejunal Tube in Pylorus"


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

     

    The case report is novel but presentation/draft of article is not good. author have written abbreviation at several places. though the abbrevations are very common but in published article the word thos need to repeat again and again could be abbrevated that too at very first instance wherein at first instance full form of world with abbrevation in bracket should be written. at later stages in text abbrevations could be used for these repeating words.


  • Other Comments:

    Authors reported that 2 tubes were used. one nasogastric tube for decompressing stomach and second nasogastric tube anchored at jejunam for feeding. I would like to draw attention of authors that the second tube fixed for jejunal feeding must be jejunal tube. Accordingly in title and text of article, the jejunal tube must have been written rather than saying fixation of NG tube. author have written word nasogastric tube fixation hence it's unclear thatthe fixed tube was nasogastric or jejunal tube ? author should correct his article accordingly.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    As an Author and established Peer Reviewer in many journals, I published and Reviewed many case reports in different journals. I keep myself updated in surgical cases

  • How to cite:  Sharma N K.Latrogenic Complications of NG Tube - Accidental Fixation to the Pylorus of Stomuch - A Case Study and Review of literature[Review of the article 'Iatrogenic Complications of NG Tube - Accidental Fixation to the Pylorus of Stomach - A Case Study and Review of literature ' by Jain A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(6):WMCRW002766
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    To report a case of accidental NG tube fixation & to review its relevant literature.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    NA


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    This paper requires a detail review by authors. Following points need to be explained-

    1. first NG tube is not used for jejunal placement & feeds but NJ [naso-jejunal] tube is used.
    2. NJ tube can function for stomach decompression till feeding is started...so why 2 tubes were used?
    3. suturing for perforation closure is done horizontal manner...so NJ tube entrapment is rare event.
    4. why 3 weeks time period was chosen for removal is not mentioned...as the perforation healing will take atleast 6-8 weeks minimum.
    5. how exactly the endoscopic manipulation is done is not clear.
    6. discussion is extremely short.
    7. literature review needs to be done for NJ & NG tube both.
    8. how long the patient was followed after NG tube removal has not been mentioned.
    9. how laparoscopy can help in this scenario is not clear.
    10. what is the take home message is also not very clear.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am working as GI surgeon for more than 13 years where i try to avoid such situations.

  • How to cite:  Belekar D M.Iatrogenic Complications of NG tube- Case Report & Literature Review[Review of the article 'Iatrogenic Complications of NG Tube - Accidental Fixation to the Pylorus of Stomach - A Case Study and Review of literature ' by Jain A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(6):WMCRW002764
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The importance of certain suturing technique for gastroduodenal perforation without suturing NG tube with gastroduodenal wall.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    I think it not novel.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    I don' t know the previous letter containing the claim but this complication is very common.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No comment.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The author should describe how to remove NG tube in more detail.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    In this article it may be most important to clarify how to remove NG tube in more detail. I think 2-3 weeks after surgery is too long to secure the stability of omental patch ro simple closure for perforated gastroduodenal ulcer.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes; I would like to present this fact in our risk management conferance.


  • Other Comments:

    No more comments.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Moriwaki Y, Arata S, Tahara Y, Toyoda H, Kosuge T, Suzuki N. Duodenal perforation due to compression necrosis by the tip of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. Nutrition 27(9):979-81,2011.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have some experiences of cases with complication of placement of NG tube, such as gastroduodenal perforation and esophageal errosion.

  • How to cite:  Moriwaki Y .Please Describe your Procedure for removing NG tube [Review of the article 'Iatrogenic Complications of NG Tube - Accidental Fixation to the Pylorus of Stomach - A Case Study and Review of literature ' by Jain A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(6):WMCRW002762
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse